The Impact of Modality, Technology Suspicion, and NDRT Engagement on the Effectiveness of AV Explanations

Esterwood, Connor · 2023 · IEEE Access

DOI: 10.1109/access.2023.3302261

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (DOI — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This study investigates how the modality of automated vehicle (AV) explanations, individual technology suspicion, and engagement in non-driving-related tasks (NDRTs) influence explanation effectiveness. While explanations are used to promote AV acceptance, prior research has not sufficiently examined how sensory channels (auditory vs. visual) interact with user traits and task demands. The authors hypothesized that auditory explanations would be more effective for high-suspicion individuals not engaged in NDRTs, as this modality reduces cognitive load on visual resources required for monitoring the driving environment. The researchers conducted a within-subjects experiment with 32 participants using a high-fidelity driving simulator configured to simulate SAE Level 5 automation. Participants experienced four conditions: auditory explanation with NDRT, auditory explanation without NDRT, visual explanation with NDRT, and visual explanation without NDRT. Technology suspicion was measured using the Complacency Potential Rating Scale, categorizing participants as high or low suspicion. During the simulation, unexpected driving events occurred, and explanations were provided seven seconds prior to the vehicle’s action. Anxiety and perceived unsafety were measured using validated scales after each condition. The results supported the hypothesis of a significant three-way interaction among modality, NDRT engagement, and technology suspicion for both anxiety and unsafety perception. When participants were engaged in an NDRT, explanation modality had no significant effect on anxiety or unsafety perceptions, regardless of suspicion levels. However, in the absence of an NDRT, modality mattered significantly. High-suspicion individuals reported lower anxiety and perceived unsafety when receiving auditory explanations compared to visual ones. Conversely, low-suspicion individuals reported lower anxiety and perceived unsafety when receiving visual explanations compared to auditory ones. These findings indicate that there is no universally superior explanation modality for AVs. Instead, effectiveness depends on the user’s psychological state and current attentional load. The study highlights that auditory explanations are beneficial for users who are skeptical of the technology and fully attentive, likely because they provide clear justification without diverting visual attention from the road. In contrast, less suspicious users may find auditory cues startling or unnecessary, preferring visual information. The results suggest that future AV systems should adapt explanation modalities based on user profiles and task engagement to optimize human-machine interaction and trust.

Key finding

Auditory explanations are more effective than visual ones in reducing anxiety and unsafety perceptions for high-suspicion individuals not engaged in a non-driving-related task, whereas low-suspicion individuals prefer visual explanations.

Methodology

simulator

Sample size: 32

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed. Discovered via unpaywall on 2026-05-06 (9 acquisition events logged).

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-10; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• acceptance adoption
• ehmi external hmi
• automation surprise
• mode awareness
• automation
• feedback modes

Information type

What kind of knowledge this paper contributes, grouped by family — independent of topic (what it is about) and method (how it was studied).

• Applied Guidance: design guidelines
• Empirical Findings: self report data
• Theoretical Contribution: theory or model